In class, upon reviewing why perhaps the wizarding world of Harry Potter is not as appealing as it appears to be in The Prisoner Of Azkaban, I’ve come to the conclusion that education really is only what you make of it. People are naturally attracted to the things that are unavailable to them, and the Harry Potter series acts as the epitome of adolescent escape. Children and young people can read JK Rowling’s novels, and escape into a world that will never be available to them. However, even if it was readily available, would it be a desirable world to spend one’s youth? Constantly evading death and destruction? We discussed this in class, and it certainly made me think.
In the beginning of The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry doesn’t know about his imminent doom until overhearing a conversation between the Weasleys. Because he had no knowledge of this danger before eavesdropping on them, he had no fear when he saw the grim while away from Hogwarts. Once he does arrive at Hogwarts however, he is constantly bombarded with fear, stress, and pessimism from his peers. He is now extremely concerned about seeing the grim again, and his divination professor only makes matters worse, further escalating this anxiety. Kant says that enlightenment is the escape from self-incurred minority, and that it coincides with the truest freedom. In Harry Potter’s case however, he is less free, and more confined than ever after finding out the truth. His freedom from the Dursleys ends up leaving him with more knowledge, but that knowledge doesn’t keep him “free”. Although I don’t personally believe that it is ethical to keep people in the dark regarding things that will upset them, keeping someone ignorant could potentially protect them. This idea presents itself in the conversation between the reverend and Grant Wiggins in a Lesson Before Dying. Mentioned in my prior post, the reverend claims his lies are better for his community than the truth.
All posts by a.camina
Different Kinds of Knowledge- Extra Credit Post 1
Upon reading A Lesson Before Dying, I came to the conclusion that sometimes the truth is too difficult to bare. Also, the text proves that having status and formal education does not always mean that you have more knowledge than others. Grant Wiggins, an educated, intelligent man comes face to face with the fact that not matter how much he tries, his education has not equipped him with the ability to free his students from their place in society.
One part of the novel that really gained my attention was the conversation between Wiggins and the reverend. On page 178, they’re discussing what Wiggins would do if Jefferson asked him about the existence of heaven. Wiggins, a skeptic, says that he’d rather not think of something like that even happening, and the reverend has a quick change of attitude. He quickly addresses why even if you tell people lies, they help people cope a lot of the time, and that that’s perfectly alright. The reverend says that he “lies at wakes and funerals to relieve pain” and to help people overcome their sadness. The reverend finishes his rant with “that makes me the educated one, and you the gump” implying that Wiggins has no right to judge him for his actions, and that he doesn’t have the same firsthand experience that the reverend has. This all shows that even though Wiggins is well educated and full of formal knowledge, he lacks this basic understanding. I think this really taps into the theme of “school isn’t everything”, and that a lot of the time we don’t learn important life lessons about humans, their thoughts, and their coping mechanisms.
Intro
The civil rights activist Malcolm X was born intellectually capable, hopeful, and adept. Although he lived during a period of severe racial injustice, through his capabilities, the chances of him succeeding and living out a normal life were high. By being told he was a lesser human, his perspective changed, bringing him down a path of fighting the same entity that denied him hope. The students to To Sir With Love, show signs of having experienced a similar disillusionment, until Mark gives them love and support. According to Locke, humans have no innate understanding of their limitations or status, meaning that the key to a successful education is not through discipline, but through positive reinforcement. This can be seen in the education of both Malcom X and the student body of To Sir With Love.
One of the first things to make note of, is the fact that Malcolm X was able to teach himself a great deal despite leaving the standard education system. This is why he acts as such a great example of why formal education has failed. He proves himself highly intelligent through his journey of self-education, but if he himself, a bright and promising young man, was rejected from the American schooling system, one wonders how many intelligent pupils have been lost for the same reasons.
Thesis Excercise #2
According to Locke, humans have no innate understanding of their limitations or status, meaning that the key to a successful education is not through discipline, but through positive reinforcement. This can be seen in the education of both Malcom X and the student body of To Sir With Love, where the judgement of their teachers decide their two fates.
The Intrinsic Value of an Education
In the texts A Lesson Before Dying and in To Sir With Love, there are common themes, especially that of teachers being nothing but bodies of discipline and authority. Most of us are taught that teachers represent beacons of hope and purveyors of knowledge. It seems that most of the best teachers, although difficult to define such a thing, are not provided to the lower-class students. All too often, underprivileged, working class citizens and students are denied the passionate teachers that those in elite schools are granted with. To Sir With Love is set during a time in England where there was an established educational hierarchy. It was almost impossible for inner city students to get into good schools, or study what was known as “PP & E”; politics, philosophy, and economics, a course of study that was reserved for the children of the elite. Mark, or “Sir” is the odd one out in a community of disinterested teachers. The rest of the educators know that no matter how hard they try, the students won’t change, nor will they be able to ascend their class struggles. Although this is an inconvenient truth for most, Sir takes it as an opportunity to give the youth something valuable to take away with them. Even though they won’t be able to change their fates, they will have valuable skills to carry with them throughout their lives. When the friendly woman in the market says to Mark, “so long as we learn, it doesn’t matter who teaches us, does it?” she highlights the fact that degrees, material gain, and status does not matter, as long as lessons are learned and positive skills are gained.
In A Lesson Before Dying, the useless teacher figure is one that will not be able to bring their students out of their desperate circumstances, no matter how much of an effort is made. Wiggins says, “I teach what the white folks around here tell me to teach, reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. They never told me how to keep a black boy out of a liquor store.” Despite his prestigious academic background, he is worried that he is doing nothing for his community of students but regurgitate the white education that he has been taught to teach. Growing up in the deep South, he knows that the chances of his black students being able to swim against the current and defy the limitations of Southern white America, are slim, and wishes to teach them what they really need in order to survive and achieve based on their circumstances. He knows that degrees, material gain and prestige still will not prepare them for their lives to come, and Mark in To Sir With Love has similar thoughts regarding his underprivileged students. The teacher figures in both texts are extremely fascinating, and relate to each other deeply.
Order, Morals, and Rebellion
Morals: Morals and the attainment of moral perfection acted as driving forces in the young like of Benjamin Franklin, and although him and Tom Sawyer were similar in their energy and creativity, their moral compasses were not very similar. Tom Sawyer lied, sometimes for the greater good (in Becky’s case), and othertimes for his own personal gain.
Order: Tom Sawyer did not partake in any form of order or organization. Both his thinking and his actions defied rule and regulation, while Benjamin Franklin attributes all of his success to having an orderly, mindful life. Tom Sawyer did not respect order, or the personification of order found in his teacher and other adults.
The argument to be made is that every young person is different, and education cannot be standardized to suit just one. Some people hail order and rule, while others completely reject them. It seems that the American education system caters to the attitudes of pupils like Ben Franklin. For example, an ordered day, every day/schedules/etc while reflecting on a set of rules and virtues made him an extremely successful man, while teachings of the same manner didn’t do as much for Tom Sawyer.
We want what we can’t get
The driving force behind mankind’s attainment of knowledge is temptation. From the beginning of the novel Frankenstein, to it’s end, Victor’s interest in the forbidden and unknown is supported by the thoughts of Rousseau.
Enlightenment in Secret
Although there are a number of similarities between Douglass’s narrative and Immanuel Kant’s essay, they are not entirely compatible. Kant believes that nonconformity is the key to enlightenment, as well as choosing to seek out the truth regardless of the pressure and opinions of others. He discusses the importance of not being a product of those around you, and to break free of what he calls “minority” or the state of being unable “to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another.”
A significant part of Douglass’s progress had to do with him seeking out knowledge. It also had a lot to do with his refusal to stay in a state of “minority” that so many of his fellow slaves had sunk into out of fear and solemnity. However, his clever ability to grant himself an education without getting caught displays how far he went to be as seemingly “minority” as possible. And by advancing his process of enlightenment in secret he certainly does not publicly “argue” which Kant says is the right of every man, unwarranting of punishment. Also, within his narrative he makes it clear that a slave was never able to “publicly express his thoughts” regarding his treatment. It was not an option, and the slave definitely could not highlight his dissatisfaction in detail like Kant’s taxpayer who complains about “the inappropriateness or even injustice of such decrees” in his enlightenment essay. A slave had no choice but to keep his thoughts in his head, for even sharing his opinion with a stranger on the street could have extreme consequences as seen in the case of Colonel Lloyd and his unaware slave in chapter three.
The Schools and Their Value
In the eleventh chapter of Frankenstein, the monster begins reflecting on his earliest days of existence. He talks about his discoveries, and everything that he taught himself amidst those early days of confusion and loneliness. In relation to Emile, the basics of survival that the monster learns come from the school of nature, making decisions based on the torments of “hunger and thirst”. His learning through experience proves to be incredibly important. He lives and thrives off of instinct, and only upon encountering humans and their disgust towards does he learn from the school of man. Again, he learns from the school of man; language, communication, guilt, once he begins observing the cottage and its inhabitants, proving that “all that we need when we come to man’s estate, is the gift of education” (Part One). This part of the monsters education is vital if he is to be able to function in the realm of man.
Rousseau puts a great deal of emphasis on the school of nature. In chapter twelve however, when the monster begins feeling lonely, sad, and isolated, it seems that the school and realm of man is the most valuable to him. The school of nature, no matter how useful, will never teach him the benefits of social interaction and human relationships.
Man vs. Monster
It seems that Emerson’s idea of the perfect man is someone who is well rounded, and not limited to any specific function within society. He complains that, “the state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk” and seems to be highlighting how men are divided by occupation. This heavily reflects Descartes’ views on education, and the necessity of making sure people are educated outside of what is immediately accessible to them. He is critical of close mindedness, and praises travel, experience, and the “book of the world”. Descartes criticizes the thoughts of “those whose experience has been limited to their own country” (Part I), and in Emerson’s case, he criticizes the thoughts of men who are limited by their occupation or bureaucratic duties. Rousseau also talks about how vital a balanced education is, and how one form of schooling is useless without some contribution from another (the school of nature, man, etc). Again, this can be linked to Emerson and his perception of the “incomplete man”.
It seems that a common link among many 19th century writers is this almost post renaissance evaluation of man, and the idea of the perfect human. The century was soaked in fascinations with eugenics, race, and classification of individuals, whilst also having a idealistic grand view of mankind, promoting the ability of all men to be able to achieve and obtain happiness. Among the philosophers whose works we’ve been reading and discussing, it seems the perfect man is free-thinking, not limited by the thoughts and opinions of others, and separate from “the herd” (Emerson).